On shorter putts I like to line up the ball and look at the hole and the line to the hole. I then look down that line through the ball and try and get the putter face through and toward the hole. Don't miss many when I do this.

Trying to hit something you're not looking at really makes no sense. As Itchy opined, when you're hitting a tennis ball with a racquet, your eyes are on the ball, so why would you do anything different when swinging a club at a stationery ball, eg putting?

According to a lot of sources, the reason a lot of putts miss, is cause people look up too early. That being the case if they never actually look down, they'd never make a single putt.

As for me, I do all the work prior to stepping in to putt. Line the ball up along my target line from behind the ball, then I'm good to go.

Half the time I don't bother even looking at the hole once I'm in position over the ball, as it's about trusting the line I've chosen, and just making centre contact on the ball with the putter at a decent speed.

Sample size of just 28 is scientific dribble. No statistically significant difference within the huge margin of error.

I read through the article. It is not an easy read.
28 people is not a huge sample of people however the data involved 4,032 putts. As well as the data set the sample of people was fairly reasonable using people who had golf experience.
The data was subject to proper statistical interpretation.
I accept the relevance of the study.

The method of data analysis used was ANOVA or Analysis of variance. I did some statistics way back, enough to respect the method which has been widely used for a long time.
Those keen to know more can find out about it in Wikipedia.

The method of data analysis used was ANOVA or Analysis of variance. I did some statistics way back, enough to respect the method which has been widely used for a long time.
Those keen to know more can find out about it in Wikipedia.

Yes a study would have used statistical analysis, but was probably done on one day on one green but it is hardly conclusive but has to also be compared to the variations that are real.

if compare with the pga tour stats

from 6 ft the guy who was ranked 1 last week holed 100 % of his attempts from that distance, the28th player for the week from that distance holed 78.5%.

same from 10 ft 1 rank holed only 75% the 28th ranked player holed 33 %

from 10 to 15 ft 1 ranked holed 61.1 % the 28th ranked holed 40.5%.

what pga tour stats show is that tour players (the best in world ) their putting performance ie the % holed each week from different distances will vary depending on speed of greens, type of grass, pin location. etc

the point here is if tour players vary each week in their performance then almost certainly so will the 28 participants..

what we dont know as well from study is did the performance of looking at the hole improve for high handicappers vs low handicappers.

from the study to go to next level, it should be repeated again and again with same set of golfers on a different courses with different grass, even putting in afternoon vs morning.

then re done again with a different skill set over same greens as first study.

the findings will be different .

2017 OOM winner at Growling Frog.

2016 A grade winner Moonah legends OOM4.

2015 member of team Vision winners of SGC pennant.

2014 National ISG champion

2014 winner Kooindah waters

2014 winner Magenta shores

2014 first ever hole in 1 in an ISG event, 4th Hole Kooindah waters 19th October